Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Reynard]

Something that occurred to me recently regarding the "storyness" part of the debate:

We get save-or-dies from stories. Medusa's petrifying gaze is a story elements, and like all story elements is under complete control of the storyteller. "One glance, you're stone, no save other than maybe looking away at the last moment" is fine in a story, but should it have been translated that way into a game? In its original version is was designed to work with the plot protection "mechanic". Is it really such a good idea to translate one story element over without translating over whatever else it was designed to work best with?

But isn't that true of every aspect of the game, that is was a "story element" (I.e.plot device) translated to a game element?

 

[BryonD]

I think you're right. There are plenty of SoD critters in the wandering monster tables in the DMG.

Shrug, there has always been a "being a hero is part luck" element of D&D. Gygax was very clear about that. I have not used a wander monster table in years. That isn't to say that "random, non-plot-related" monsters don't make regaular appearances. But a medusa, for example, doesn't make sense as just happening to be somewhere. A basilisk certainly could.

I 100% agree that older versions of the game had a clear "gotcha" element built in.

1E, in particular, was much more about "in the dungeon", and the whims of fate on an encounter by encounter basis. Not that it started and ended there, but that element of the story was distinctly prominent.

Also, "only be used in very specific circumstances where the PC's have ample opportunity to prepare themselves" is a major exagerration of what I said. Certainly having some specific circumstances where the preparation to take on a specific threat is part of the story cna be great fun. But, there are options where no specific knowledge is needed, but a general preparation still makes sense.

All the counter argument keep insisting on removing the example from all context whatsoever. A basilisk may be a decent wandering encounter. But, a basilisk randomly in room 14b really makes no more sense than a medusa. Ecology and history and culture also fit. If there are one or more basilisks down in the caves, or a catoblepas in the swamp, then there is going to be some kind of knowledge in the surrounding area.

When all is said and done, things should work the way they should work. Making them less threatening just to make them less threatening does nothing but steal the fun of facing the threat.

At the end of the day, if the fun is strongly attached to "getting the story right", then no amount of fun added by removing save and die is going to outweigh the fun removed by the gamist disruption of the story. I don't remotely expect that everyone will have the same desire for story above all else, that I have. But that is my reason. To me, if you get medusa wrong, then you got the story wrong. I don't see any merit, for me, in having a live character in game that misses the very elements that make the game fun.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But isn't that true of every aspect of the game, that is was a "story element" (I.e.plot device) translated to a game element?

Well my point is that when translating a story element into a game one has to consider whether how the element works in the story is a satisfactory way for it to work in the game. I'm deliberately attempting to compare it to what I think I've read in counter-arguments against the "Well that's not how it works in stories" position, which seems to include the idea that the workings of stories can't be translated into games as they directly appear.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well my point is that when translating a story element into a game one has to consider whether how the element works in the story is a satisfactory way for it to work in the game. I'm deliberately attempting to compare it to what I think I've read in counter-arguments against the "Well that's not how it works in stories" position, which seems to include the idea that the workings of stories can't be translated into games as they directly appear.

AFAICT, the main division in thought is whether or not plot-protection should work in a game in the way that it works in stories. Or rather, to what degree it should do so. Many, many conversations about effects like fudging, SoD, character death, etc., are really just subsets of that overarching conversation, IMHO.

IMHO, that question cannot be answered without first considering what one wants to achieve. In a game like D&D, I want the possibility of death to be real. What I am looking for is an exploration-based game, where players determine the level of the risk they are willing to undertake, and where greater risk = potentially greater rewards. This colours my opinion on many topics re: fantasy role-playing games.

For instance, in 3e, it is generally advisable that the party all be the same level, as a result of the steep power curve. I believe that this detracts from consequence, and that consequence (along with context) are what make choices meaningful. Likewise the way treasure is managed in 4e (Essentials may address this, though): I want the consequence of missing treasure to remain a possibility. A strong likelihood, even, so that regions of the campaign milieu are not so easily "played out".

Likewise, I want SoD, although in my system a character can choose to lose an action to gain a bonus to that save. (I like resource management, and I want my players to have to make resource management decisions; economy of actions is a resource.)

OTOH, if you run a game in which there are no clues as to what you might be facing, then there is no context to making decisions. Not providing context is as bad -- perhaps far worse -- than not providing consequences. So, no random Medusa in room 14b for me. Nor do I make snakes silent from a distance, or snaky waving hair somehow invisible from farther than 30 feet away. Given a choice between RAW and allowing for interesting choices/consequences.....well, it is the spirit of the game I adhere to. Or, at least, the spirit of the game as I wish to play it!

If I am running a game like Cubicle 7's Doctor Who, or running a superhero game like Mutants & Masterminds, SoD is not genre-appropriate, IMHO. It is in conflict with what I want, rather than supporting it. Still, for example, getting hit by a Dalek gun is lethal....as it should be. Players have resources (Action Points) to ameliorate this lethality. In the case of the Player being out of APs, they can be donated by other players (if appropriate), or the GM can offer the Unadventurous trait, which gives the player APs but causes the character to begin thinking about leaving the TARDIS.

Again, I note that those games where the goal is to tell a story are potentially damaged by random losses (whether SoD or otherwise), while those games where the goal is to see what happens are not. Only when you have a vested interest in a particular outcome (or subset of outcomes) does it matter what the actual outcome is.

In a D&D-type game, I don't want the GM to have a vested interest in a particular outcome. Doing so, IMHO, damages player agency.

In a game like Doctor Who, I expect the GM to have a vested interest in the overarching narrative -- the narrative is (sometimes) more important than player agency in that type of game. You have to know what it is you want in order to know what is appropriate.

OTOH, in a D&D-type game, I want the players to have a vested interest in particular outcomes -- to set goals and to attempt to meet them. The success or failure of the players should be foreordained, IMHO, either because the GM wants to protect the PCs, or because the GM wants to have some kind of gleeful "gotcha" moment. Both of these "undesireable" outcomes arise, you may note, from the GM determining what should happen, as opposed to accepting what does happen.

It doesn't matter which side of the screen I am on; that is what I am looking for.

Different strokes for different folks & all that, but I have never wanted for players any time I was willing to run a game. And I have run a lot of games for a lot of people, in several states and two countries. Nor have I ever been in a group where I could be a player for long, as my GMing was in demand. So I can't help but imagine that this type of game, when run well (or at least as well as I can run one) is very popular. At least throughout North America.

YMMV. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

And if YMDoesV, you should play it the way you like it. Life is too short for games you don't enjoy!


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Well, it is merely observation that a number of people in the anti-SoD camp have, in the past, also advocated anti-D.

But we haven't actually see many people saying that, at least in this thread. Sure, it could be a statement founded on your previous experiences with such claims, but saying that "the issue many have with Save or Die is just dying, not the mechanic itself" - when most responses have indicated otherwise - seems to be putting forward a false few of the situation.

OTOH, I have no idea where you are getting "Save or Die is ok with proper gamers who are about Roleplaying and the experience, and those who don't like it are the gamers who are only focused on 'winning' and 'losing'."

AFAICT, that is a conclusion that you have reached alone, and is not even particularly supported by the posts you are responding to.

"I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group."

That... is the exact post I was responding to. Which outright says that some games, which are heavy on roleplaying, have awesome dramatic heroic deaths, and other games, which are light on roleplaying, are about winning and losing.

My post was much more aimed at BryonD's statement than your own. Your own certainly seemed to feed into it - offering up the idea that the people objecting to SoD were just objecting to death in general, and didn't like to have their characters ever risk dying. Which could well have some value judgements attached, if not presented outright as such.

In any case, as I said - I think several of your points were good ones (and that the duration of 'downtime' can be a key factor of the frustration over 'instant death'), and my only issue was point 3, particularly when taken to the much more extreme view presented by BryondD.

 

[MrMyth]

I'm a little confused. There's a room, which implies a door, or at least a portal of some sort, possibly with a hallway leading up to said portal. Why are the PCs blundering through the door and into the room without listening, checking from recent tracks and otherwise engaging in a little reconnoiter?

I'll return to a previous example from actual play: Party approaches a house in the woods. Rogue sneaks up to it. Listens, hears things moving about in side. Takes a quick look through a window. Sees a Bodak, dies.

Now, were there precautions they could have taken to avoid this? Maybe. I'm sure the right divinations could have given a heads-up, followed by the right spells (Death Ward) to protect them. But 'cast divinations before every possible fight' doesn't seem an ideal style of play, and 'always have high-level casters with you' isn't going to be the default for every group.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

(This response is not directed specifically at you, RavenCrowking.)

YMMV. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

I still think it's worth asking the question if a solution to why the whole issue exists can be found, regardless of whether everyone will accept it. If we believe that everyone can come to their own satisfactory answer and we must accept this then we must accept that in some cases that people must debate until a "solution" is found. Not because the solution is the Ultimate Solution but because in needing a different answer to satisfy everyone so everyone can have their different stroke we have to accept that these people must keep searching.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But we haven't actually see many people saying that, at least in this thread.

Thankfully, having engaged in multiple conversations with given individuals, I am able to relate their statements in one conversation to their statements in other conversations.

It is sort of neat to have continuity in this fashion!

If you are unable to do so, I would imagine that it would make SoD particularly harsh. "But, you heard about basilisks last adventure! Why didn't you know they could kill with a glance?!?!" "But that was last adventure! You didn't say it this adventure!"

Sure, it could be a statement founded on your previous experiences with such claims, but saying that "the issue many have with Save or Die is just dying, not the mechanic itself" - when most responses have indicated otherwise - seems to be putting forward a false few of the situation.

It is not merely a statement founded on my previous experiences with such claims; it is a statement founded on my previous experience of many of the same claimants.

If I, in a later thread, claimed that I wasn't pro-SoD while trying to make another point (that, say, only logically followed if I wasn't pro-SoD), wouldn't my posts in this thread make you think twice about my claim in the other?

I should hope it would.

"I think that, for some games, it can be awesome to die a dramtic, heroic death, and for some games death is nothing but "losing". I think that heavy RP games are much more likely to be in the firts group, and RP light games are much mor elikely to be in the second group."

That... is the exact post I was responding to. Which outright says that some games, which are heavy on roleplaying, have awesome dramatic heroic deaths, and other games, which are light on roleplaying, are about winning and losing.

Which makes which one wrongbadfun?

I think you are reading a context that isn't there.

AFAICT, this started with Doug McCrae's claim, upthread, that death was only okay in RP-light games.

Your own certainly seemed to feed into it - offering up the idea that the people objecting to SoD were just objecting to death in general, and didn't like to have their characters ever risk dying. Which could well have some value judgements attached, if not presented outright as such.

Merely observation, again. Many of the people saying they don't like SoD in this thread have previously discussed their dislike of D overall, and/or their support of fudging to prevent PC death. Failing to acknowledge that -- or even outright denying that -- may lead to unnecessary confusion about what is actually being objected to. I am not making a claim that this is a universal correspondence, but that it is a strong correspondence.

Hence the observation that this conversation is a subset of the overarching "How much plot protection should PCs have?" discussion.

Disambiguating in this way might make the conversation more fruitful. IMHO, anyway.


RC

 

[MrMyth]

I've never played in a *good* game in which there were wizards throwing semi-random finger of death spells at PCs around every corner.

It doesn't have to be random. But part of the argument here has been that if you didn't take 'appropriate precautions', you deserve to die. But you don't always get that chance. Whether entering a room with an enemy you couldn't predict, or even having high-level wizards come after you, that Finger of Death might just be another spell in their list. That trap might just have a Wail of the Banshee that wipes the party in the corridor. That random house in the woods might just have a Bodak.

'Good' game or 'bad' game, the system provides these possibilities. And they could well be justified by the DM! But you can't just blame him if the system has them in it. You can't say, "Save or Dies are fine, and these hundreds of times they've been a problem, its just the DM's fault. He should have fixed the system on his own. He should have run things 'right'; it's his fault for not running a 'good' game."

Defeating the Finger of Death wizard is glorious.
Getting killed by the FoD wizard can also be glorious, and memorable and fun.
Defeating the Finger of Booboo wizard is lame. Getting defeated by the FoBB wizard is pathetic.

You can't overcome a challenge if you cower from the challenge.

Raven CrowKing, if you want to know the basis for my previous statements, here's all the proof you need.

Look, BryonD - the situation isn't that limited. Our choices aren't, "Fight enemies with Save or Die" or "Have trivial encounters that never challenge you."

Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lame or pathetic' for fighting the wizard with "Finger of Booboo" - or are cowards who shy away from challenges - just isn't cool.

You like Save or Die spells. I get that. You have the right to that preference, and it provides the tension you want in the game you play. But it isn't the only way to play.

And those who object to Save or Die have many reasons for doing so. Often because they feel it doesn't make for dramatic, heroic deaths they are looking for. That doesn't mean they object to death as a whole, that doesn't mean they run from any true challenges, that doesn't mean the enemies they fight are completely trivial battles.

 

[Reynard]

I'll return to a previous example from actual play: Party approaches a house in the woods. Rogue sneaks up to it. Listens, hears things moving about in side. Takes a quick look through a window. Sees a Bodak, dies.

Now, were there precautions they could have taken to avoid this? Maybe. I'm sure the right divinations could have given a heads-up, followed by the right spells (Death Ward) to protect them. But 'cast divinations before every possible fight' doesn't seem an ideal style of play, and 'always have high-level casters with you' isn't going to be the default for every group.

Can we contextualize a bit? Why's the party there? Why is the house there? Why is the bodak there? How long? To what effect on the local area?

Point being: it is certainly possible for the situation to play out as you describe, but how it actually plays out is highly dependent on context. And more to the point, whether the rogue's death is "fair" is equally dependent on context.

Plus, the rogue might actually make his save.